I worked 9 years at a car fleet management company, and we got individual deals out of manufacturers where they would cover part or full cost of replacing failured parts out of warranty all the time - its not unheard of, its quite freaking normal, the problem is most people do not ask.
We were never asked to sign a confidentiality agreement however - it was pretty much always an agreement made with a warranty services rep over the phone, followed by submitting the invoice to them with the reference number written on it.
The intention of the House of Lords is to have a voting body which is not beholden to an electorate, so they can make the unpopular decisions and not be punished for it.
This is the same House of Lords which rejected 90 day detention of terrorism suspects without charge, which was something the government was desperately trying to push through a few years ago.
Under the Parliaments Act 1911 and 1949, the House of Commons can vote to over rule the House of Lords and pass a bill into law without the agreement of the Lords.
Labour did this to enact the Hunting Act 2004, which banned fox hunting, so its still fully available to current governments.
No company is legally required to help another entity create competition against itself. That's what is happening here - Uber is refusing to help someone else compete with it.
The problem is, Google wont talk to you about it - their decision is invariably final, so you are stuck with whatever their algorithm has decided. In his case, by making the site more secure Google have decided to put him on a lower revenue ad stream - there aint nothing he is going to be able to do to change that.
It might work in Norway, but I wouldnt take that as granted that its a good indication of success elsewhere - here in the UK, such a decree would destroy new car ownership for a good portion of the public. Why? Because a good portion of the UKs population live in cities in housing with no offstreet parking, no guaranteed parking space onstreet and very poor public transport - to get to my local hospital from my previous house would be two bus changes and a trip time of over an hour, or 15 minutes by car.
Its just not practical to expect this type of housing to support a method of travel which requires dedicated charging spots, because then you are reliant on third party locations providing those spots. Cant charge at home, after all (typically its difficult enough to park on the same street).
If you think nothing of value comes from Twitter, then follow some people - I see plenty of value in Twitter, but then I follow people I know create value and I un-follow people who stop creating value. Its a very useful tool - if you don't agree, then feel free to stop using Twitter, but don't presume to think that your opinion means we should all consider Twitter useless.
They are named differently because the way they take off power to compress the air is different - turbochargers use a turbine driven by the exhaust gasses from the engine, while superchargers are driven by the drive train. Turbochargers are preferred in motor sports because they don't use energy intended for driving the wheels.
They are not, as suggested by a grand parent post, just a marketing term - they are very specific terms used to describe different ways of compressing air in engines.
Its a Surface Book, so the SSD comment isnt valid - all it has is an SSD, and Im still out half an hour on average. Yes, I leave it on and available - indeed, more than once its said "updates will be applied at 8.29" (10 minutes in the future) so Ive put it down (turned on, powered up and logged in) and... its gone past 8.29 without any action at all. But the next morning, its installing updates on wake up as its got halfway through updates at some point in the night and promptly given up for some reason after the reboot.
I was away on holiday last week, and every time I opened the SB (three or four times each week), it installed updates.
Yes I would - its a much better OS than either Win7 or Win8.
However, my frustrations centre around Windows 10 updates (not upgrades to Windows 10 but updates of Windows 10).
The number of times I have opened my laptop for a quick 5 minute task, only to be greeted by "we are installing a system update" and have the next half hour wasted, or the number of times I have rebooted and run into the same thing - oh, and while MS have added a "restart" option as well as the "install updates and restart" option, it doesnt work, updates are installed anyway.
For all the immediate frustrations I have with Windows 10, I wouldnt go back.
Ive given up with Alastair Reynolds, he seems intent on not telling the story he builds up to telling - both the Revelation Space and the Poseidons Children series end with the interesting story that is being built up to actually being utterly skipped, Terminal World sets up an interesting world but Reynolds has said he never intends revisiting it, Century Rain almost comes to a conclusion but never quite does - only Pushing Ice and House of Suns end.
This is the same country where you cannot legally cut your kids out of an inheritance - the French government has never been shy about stepping in where it really shouldnt have any jurisdiction.
Have laser power requirements really changed that dramatically since the Boeing YAL-1 project ended? The chemical oxygen iodine laser aboard the YAL-1 was a 1MW laser, and destroyed its targets (ICBMs) by heating the target until its fuel tanks ruptured - it didn't destroy the target in the traditional sci-fi sense of directed energy weapons...
Whether you can use the same approach for enemy aircraft, tanks etc remains to be seen - it will probably be more likely that such targets need an ablative weapon to be destroyed, as jet fuel can be heated considerably more than the pressurised tanks on an ICBM.
The YAL-1 carried enough fuel for 20 shots at 1MW strength, and it needed a Boeing 747 to carry it, so the summaries "thousands of shots using a single gallon of jet fuel" sounds a little... optimistic when you consider the energy densities in play.
Every system has problems, and even with its problems the NHS is light years ahead of free healthcare in countries like the US. Id rather have it as it is now than switch to the US system.
I hope your mom also enjoyed every dollar of taxpayer money it took for her end of life medical care as she sucked down those cigarettes.
In the UK one of the constant complaints about smoking is the cost to the taxpayer via the NHS of care for smoking related illness.
The problem with that is that cigarettes and tobacco are taxed to the hilt, with treasury income through taxation coming in at three to four times that of the typical direct costs to the NHS for treating smoking related illness.
So the government actually make a direct profit - I'm sure they would like the NHS costs to simply go away, but the common argument that smoking related illnesses costs taxpayers is essentially a fallacy.
The fact that there are minimums at all is astounding - here in the UK there is no limit to third party liability (you can limit the amount *you* get paid by *your* insurance, but not how much someone else can get paid by your insurance), so its astounding to us that in the US you can get away with limits.
This is what is pretty ridiculous about US motor vehicle insurance requirements - you can buy cover which has limits for third parties.
In the UK you get three options:
1. Fully comprehensive 2. Third party, fire and theft 3. Third party only
In all three options, damage and injury to third parties is fully and completely covered, no matter how high the medical bills are (sure, the NHS will piece you back together, but when you need long term care that is where the insurance money comes into play).
There is no option in the UK to limit third party liability - you can only limit the amount of money you would receive for your own property in the situation where you are deemed to be at fault.
Why the hell can you limit third party liability in the US?! It makes no sense!
So basically, its worth trying to get away with doing it without paying in the first instance, because the worst case is "actual cost plus a bit for legal costs" and the best case is "don't pay at all". No wonder many people take the risk, especially where legal costs are regulated...
A judge is also required to take into account the probability that further incarceration is likely to be conducive to the goal - holding someone in contempt of court is not a punitive measure, its a conducive measure, so if its unlikely to achieve the goal required then a judge is not supposed to continue holding someone in contempt.
Slashdot Mirror
I worked 9 years at a car fleet management company, and we got individual deals out of manufacturers where they would cover part or full cost of replacing failured parts out of warranty all the time - its not unheard of, its quite freaking normal, the problem is most people do not ask.
We were never asked to sign a confidentiality agreement however - it was pretty much always an agreement made with a warranty services rep over the phone, followed by submitting the invoice to them with the reference number written on it.
The intention of the House of Lords is to have a voting body which is not beholden to an electorate, so they can make the unpopular decisions and not be punished for it.
This is the same House of Lords which rejected 90 day detention of terrorism suspects without charge, which was something the government was desperately trying to push through a few years ago.
Under the Parliaments Act 1911 and 1949, the House of Commons can vote to over rule the House of Lords and pass a bill into law without the agreement of the Lords.
Labour did this to enact the Hunting Act 2004, which banned fox hunting, so its still fully available to current governments.
Life got expensive.
No company is legally required to help another entity create competition against itself. That's what is happening here - Uber is refusing to help someone else compete with it.
And I agree with Uber in this instance.
The problem is, Google wont talk to you about it - their decision is invariably final, so you are stuck with whatever their algorithm has decided. In his case, by making the site more secure Google have decided to put him on a lower revenue ad stream - there aint nothing he is going to be able to do to change that.
It might work in Norway, but I wouldnt take that as granted that its a good indication of success elsewhere - here in the UK, such a decree would destroy new car ownership for a good portion of the public. Why? Because a good portion of the UKs population live in cities in housing with no offstreet parking, no guaranteed parking space onstreet and very poor public transport - to get to my local hospital from my previous house would be two bus changes and a trip time of over an hour, or 15 minutes by car.
Its just not practical to expect this type of housing to support a method of travel which requires dedicated charging spots, because then you are reliant on third party locations providing those spots. Cant charge at home, after all (typically its difficult enough to park on the same street).
If you think nothing of value comes from Twitter, then follow some people - I see plenty of value in Twitter, but then I follow people I know create value and I un-follow people who stop creating value. Its a very useful tool - if you don't agree, then feel free to stop using Twitter, but don't presume to think that your opinion means we should all consider Twitter useless.
They are named differently because the way they take off power to compress the air is different - turbochargers use a turbine driven by the exhaust gasses from the engine, while superchargers are driven by the drive train. Turbochargers are preferred in motor sports because they don't use energy intended for driving the wheels.
They are not, as suggested by a grand parent post, just a marketing term - they are very specific terms used to describe different ways of compressing air in engines.
Thats what I have - after two or three notifications, it stops allowing you to defer and instead goes ahead and does it.
I've had 4 firmware updates in the past 2 weeks...
Even an extra 5 minutes when you are not expecting it is appalling - it should not be happening.
The difference between my SB and your notebook is that MS is also updating my firmware as well.
Its a Surface Book, so the SSD comment isnt valid - all it has is an SSD, and Im still out half an hour on average. Yes, I leave it on and available - indeed, more than once its said "updates will be applied at 8.29" (10 minutes in the future) so Ive put it down (turned on, powered up and logged in) and ... its gone past 8.29 without any action at all. But the next morning, its installing updates on wake up as its got halfway through updates at some point in the night and promptly given up for some reason after the reboot.
I was away on holiday last week, and every time I opened the SB (three or four times each week), it installed updates.
Updating on Win10 sucks.
The question asked for opinions, so opinions is what you get. This isnt an indepth review site.
Yes I would - its a much better OS than either Win7 or Win8.
However, my frustrations centre around Windows 10 updates (not upgrades to Windows 10 but updates of Windows 10).
The number of times I have opened my laptop for a quick 5 minute task, only to be greeted by "we are installing a system update" and have the next half hour wasted, or the number of times I have rebooted and run into the same thing - oh, and while MS have added a "restart" option as well as the "install updates and restart" option, it doesnt work, updates are installed anyway.
For all the immediate frustrations I have with Windows 10, I wouldnt go back.
Ive given up with Alastair Reynolds, he seems intent on not telling the story he builds up to telling - both the Revelation Space and the Poseidons Children series end with the interesting story that is being built up to actually being utterly skipped, Terminal World sets up an interesting world but Reynolds has said he never intends revisiting it, Century Rain almost comes to a conclusion but never quite does - only Pushing Ice and House of Suns end.
I disagree, the Surface Book is one of the best computers I have used - I even "defected" from Apple kit, and dont regret it.
This is the same country where you cannot legally cut your kids out of an inheritance - the French government has never been shy about stepping in where it really shouldnt have any jurisdiction.
Have laser power requirements really changed that dramatically since the Boeing YAL-1 project ended? The chemical oxygen iodine laser aboard the YAL-1 was a 1MW laser, and destroyed its targets (ICBMs) by heating the target until its fuel tanks ruptured - it didn't destroy the target in the traditional sci-fi sense of directed energy weapons...
Whether you can use the same approach for enemy aircraft, tanks etc remains to be seen - it will probably be more likely that such targets need an ablative weapon to be destroyed, as jet fuel can be heated considerably more than the pressurised tanks on an ICBM.
The YAL-1 carried enough fuel for 20 shots at 1MW strength, and it needed a Boeing 747 to carry it, so the summaries "thousands of shots using a single gallon of jet fuel" sounds a little ... optimistic when you consider the energy densities in play.
Every system has problems, and even with its problems the NHS is light years ahead of free healthcare in countries like the US. Id rather have it as it is now than switch to the US system.
I hope your mom also enjoyed every dollar of taxpayer money it took for her end of life medical care as she sucked down those cigarettes.
In the UK one of the constant complaints about smoking is the cost to the taxpayer via the NHS of care for smoking related illness.
The problem with that is that cigarettes and tobacco are taxed to the hilt, with treasury income through taxation coming in at three to four times that of the typical direct costs to the NHS for treating smoking related illness.
So the government actually make a direct profit - I'm sure they would like the NHS costs to simply go away, but the common argument that smoking related illnesses costs taxpayers is essentially a fallacy.
The fact that there are minimums at all is astounding - here in the UK there is no limit to third party liability (you can limit the amount *you* get paid by *your* insurance, but not how much someone else can get paid by your insurance), so its astounding to us that in the US you can get away with limits.
This is what is pretty ridiculous about US motor vehicle insurance requirements - you can buy cover which has limits for third parties.
In the UK you get three options:
1. Fully comprehensive
2. Third party, fire and theft
3. Third party only
In all three options, damage and injury to third parties is fully and completely covered, no matter how high the medical bills are (sure, the NHS will piece you back together, but when you need long term care that is where the insurance money comes into play).
There is no option in the UK to limit third party liability - you can only limit the amount of money you would receive for your own property in the situation where you are deemed to be at fault.
Why the hell can you limit third party liability in the US?! It makes no sense!
So basically, its worth trying to get away with doing it without paying in the first instance, because the worst case is "actual cost plus a bit for legal costs" and the best case is "don't pay at all". No wonder many people take the risk, especially where legal costs are regulated...
A judge is also required to take into account the probability that further incarceration is likely to be conducive to the goal - holding someone in contempt of court is not a punitive measure, its a conducive measure, so if its unlikely to achieve the goal required then a judge is not supposed to continue holding someone in contempt.